Rants and musings about things political, philosophical, and religious.

Rocky vs. Hannity

Tonight I watched the debate (or as FOX 13 termed it, the “smackdown”) between Sean Hannity and Rocky Anderson. It was two hours of heated debate (if you can call it that) and partisan bickery.

The entire thing smacked of double standards. It was nothing more than putrid partisanship and personal insults.

Luckily, I didn’t expect much more of it. I knew that it would be an entertaining “death match” of sorts between these two personalities, diametrically opposed to one another.

I must say, however, that I was sorely disappointed with Sean Hannity. Instead of answering simple questions and sticking to the subject matter, he consistently made personal attacks (even though some were valid), repeatedly labeled Rocky and members of the audience as liberals, used fearmongering to validate foreign policies, and talked up the troops in order to belittle any opposition to war policy.

Rocky had a hard time formulating questions as he repeatedly cited statistics and statements to build up his case, while Hannity towed the Republican party line and refused to answer valid questions posed him, instead using videos to smear Democrats and create further political divisiveness.

It was actually very tiring to watch. It’s the same rhetoric you see on CNN, FOX, most radio programs, and all other major media outlets. It’s harming our nation. It’s deepening our seemingly bottomless quagmire. It doesn’t aid in coming to a solution at all.

The highlight of the evening was after Hannity continually referred to John Kerry as “the president Rocky voted for”, in a continued effort to insult and demean his political opponents, the Democrats, by associating Rocky with them. After numerous times of making this connection, Rocky finally threw it back in Hannity’s face and informed him that he had voted for Ralph Nader. This was yet one more example of Hannity’s typical tactic to smear his opponents using statements that may or may not be true. I was glad to see him put in his place, for he did indeed deserve it.

So who won the debate? Neither of them. This mud-flinging match served for nothing else than to further polarize the issues brought up.

Unfortunately I did not hear the total debate. I heard much of it on the radio as I helped my daughter move into her new house. For me there were 3 distinct points of interest to the debate. 1 – Anderson used numbers, videos, quotes and facts to support his argument. 2 – Hannity used insults and critiques of “democrats” and “liberals” to make his argument (*) (asterik, see below). And finally 3 – The audience was perhaps the most annoying part (even more so than Hannity’s insults!) because of their constant yelling, booing and cheering.

* Hannity BEGAN his first sentence on-air by saying: I’m glad Mayor Anderson has taken some time out of his busy protesting schedule to come back to Salt Lake City for a while. I wonder what Rocky’s PowerPoint presentation has cost the taxpayers of Salt Lake?”

I watched the debate last night….but what struck me most was not the subject matter or the predictable personal and political party line attacks….it was the audience.

I sensed a lot of frustration, hostility and anger from both “sides”. To me this is a good sign.

Unfortunately most Americans are too scared or are too ignorant to think for themselves, but these kinds of debates make the news and hopefully make people think.

I really hope that through this type of public debate that more people will begin to start thinking about their political values/stance and understanding the reasons why they believe the what they do….and not about what restaurant or store they are going to visit next.

I agree, Chris A. I caught the wrap-up portion of the debate on KSL radio where Hannity came and gave an after-debate response on the air to the radio hosts. Hannity himself commented on the “spirited” atmosphere from the audience, and he said it didn’t surprise him, because this same atmosphere of violent disagreement is mirrored everywhere else all through the USA.

Normally I wouldn’t give any attention to a comment made by Hannity, but I actually think he is correct in this. The chasm between Hannity and Anderson is very wide, with the only people still sitting on the fence at the bottom of this chasm are totally politically unaware.

Unfortunately for Hannity however, is that if the poll went out NOT within Utah, but within the whole of the USA, his views would only represent 22%, and Rocky’s views would represent over 60%.

Thanks, Connor. Personally I was not that interested in watching said debate. It’s good to know my low expectations were not disappointed….

Ah, if only Socrates were alive today………. He would quickly put down the “add campaign” speech, poorly substantiated claims, unresponsiveness to questions, and lack of authentic debate and dialog present in such programs…..

It is my observation, that in a certain sense artful conversation and real discussion, are enemies of the modern political candidate; for several reasons…..

First, modern politicians are educated in the school of business advertising. They are interested in gaining influence, and selling themselves and their message. Their talk is intended to get results, not to educate, entertain, or to explore ideas.

Second, on the one hand politicians value excessive politeness (for fear of offending their contributors and constituents); this makes for speech that is neither spontaneous nor authentic. On the other hand, modern culture seems to value expressions of anger, disdain, or verbal bullying. Such expressions are applauded as “real”, “manly”, or “telling it like it is.” An attitude of listening and asking thoughtful questions is perceived as being “weak”, or “submissive”.

Last, the modern electronic media are rarely examples of good listening and thoughtful conversation. Instead they tend to show lots of yelling, speech-making, uncivil discussion, “dumbed- down” language, and mindless “sound bites.” (real conversation takes time.)

…………….

Upon proofreading this, it seems I am guilty on all counts………But I have run out of time, and can’t insert any thoughtful questions right now……lol

About the Author

Connor Boyack is president of Libertas Institute, a public policy think tank in Utah. He is the author of several books along with hundreds of columns and articles championing individual liberty. Connor's work has been publicly praised by national figures such as Ron Paul, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Tom Woods, and many others.

A child’s curiosity and natural desire to learn are like a tiny flame, easily extinguished unless it’s protected and given fuel. This book will help you as a parent both protect that flame of curiosity and supply it with the fuel necessary to make it burn bright throughout your child’s life. Let’s ignite our children’s natural love of learning!

What do history's most notorious despots have in common with many of the flag-waving, patriotic politicians of our day? Both groups rise to power through the exploitation of fear, which has become a societal plague. There have been widespread casualties. We need an antidote. Feardom offers its readers a much-needed immunization.

History abounds with examples of government officials making decisions, well-intentioned or otherwise, that harm others. Unfortunately, these unintended consequences are never anticipated, and rarely considered once they occur. As the Tuttle Twins find in their latest adventure, central planning can ruin people’s lives.

The oldest economic battle in history repeats itself in the fourth Tuttle Twins book. Ethan and Emily witness this battle firsthand as they help their food truck friends win public support to overturn the protectionist laws that shut them down.

The third installment in the Tuttle Twins series finds Ethan and Emily confronting a scary creature that somehow controls money and markets. Your children will learn about money, inflation, banking, and other important monetary concepts in an exciting story, beautifully illustrated.

In their second adventure, Ethan and Emily Tuttle go on a field trip to a fun factory where they learn how something as simple as a pencil is in fact a miracle—and one that nobody knows how to make! Your children will learn about the free market, why division of labor makes our lives better, and how spontaneous order is the key to human progress and happiness!

Help your children learn about the proper role of government with this engaging book full of detailed, colorful illustrations! Ethan and Emily Tuttle learn from their wise neighbor Fred about the law, what our rights are and why we have them, and how we should voluntarily help those in need!

A fundamental aspect of the good news of the gospel is the message of liberty. As President Joseph F. Smith said, “The Kingdom of God is a Kingdom of freedom; the gospel of the Son of God is the gospel of liberty.” Men of God, both ancient and modern, have spoken on this issue repeatedly. This book analyzes what liberty is and how it applies to government.

Liberty is a fundamental and eternal principle, but it cannot exist without its counterpart—personal responsibility. From self-defense and self-reliance, to faith, family, and financial freedom, this book pinpoints precise actions needed from each of us if liberty is to successfully be preserved.

This book is a compilation of essays written over the years, organized topically. At 610 pages, it's great for reference material if you're debating something with a friend and want to look up some arguments that you can use to support your pro-liberty positions.

Reviews

"An amazing book"—Ron Paul on Latter-day Liberty

"Clear, compelling, full of faith"—Judge Andrew Napolitano on Latter-day Responsibility

"Sophisticated and compelling"—Tom Woods on Feardom

Significant discounts available for bulk orders of 20 or more. Contact me for information.